Who can give the best account of why there is a God?

[spidergoat]

Spidergoat

The technical terms of theism innvolve practical application. Like for instance it is not sufficient to know what the terms "humble" and "free from sin" mean (rather one must actually exhibt these qualities), any more than it is sufficient to know what COO istands for with the krebs cycle.

But it is sufficient only to know the technical terms and anyone can observe the same results. This is not true of religion, where only the thoroughly indocrinated claim to achieve the effects. Clearly, scientific truths are observer independent, and thus not influenced by personal bias.

 

[lightgigantic]

cris

“
One could say that your purpose is to declare that god is not true.
”
Which god did you have in mind?

When you are thirsty do you drink white man's water, black man's water or are all these designations superficial since water is a singular objecticve phenomenan?

But no, my sole purpose is to survive no matter what.

Congratulations!
Looks like you have a purpose after all

 

[lightgigantic]

But it is sufficient only to know the technical terms and anyone can observe the same results. This is not true of religion, where only the thoroughly indocrinated claim to achieve the effects. Clearly, scientific truths are observer independent, and thus not influenced by personal bias.

If you don't understand the behavioural relationships between the theorized terms one may be familiar with, you certainly cannot determine the same results.

 

[Cris]

lg,

Well isn't that how it works in all fields of knowledge?
Aren't the claims of physicists out of bounds (in terms of practically, as opposed to theoretically, verifying their truth/falsity) for anyone except physicists?

No absolutely not. Most of science results in practical applications that even the most ignorant can appreciate. I’m not sure I could follow the math of Einstein that led to e=mc2 but I have no trouble understanding the death of many thousands at Hiroshima because of that sceince. I’m not quite sure how antibiotics work but I know when I had chronic pneumonia they saved my life. I’m not entirely sure how poisonous chlorine and explosive sodium combine to produce regular salt, but I’ve done that experiment directly myself at high school so I know it is true. I’m not sure of everything needed to conduct heart surgery but I know surgeons use the proofs developed by science to make it possible.

So I do not need to be an expert scientist to appreciate the extensive proofs and knowledge presented by science.

“ What’s your proof of that? ”

the same as any experiment, namely the conclusion arrived at determines the feasibility of the claims

So what practical proofs has religion ever delivered that we can appreciate in the same way that science has provided?

 

[Cris]

lg,

When you are thirsty do you drink white man's water, black man's water or are all these designations superficial since water is a singular objecticve phenomenan?

How does that answer the question of which god? There are thousands of definitions. Do you have a proof that there is only one god and if so which one is it?

 

[Fire]

So what practical proofs has religion ever delivered that we can appreciate in the same way that science has provided?

Charasmatic preachers allow gullible people to perceive his created delusion. This is true of suicide bombers, suicide cults, ufo cults, astrology, and as LG rightly points out - scripture.

 

[spidergoat]

If you don't understand the behavioural relationships between the theorized terms one may be familiar with, you certainly cannot determine the same results.

So? These relationships are reproducible and well defined, unlike the tenets of religion.

 

[Cris]

Fire,

Yup good point.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
Well isn't that how it works in all fields of knowledge?
Aren't the claims of physicists out of bounds (in terms of practically, as opposed to theoretically, verifying their truth/falsity) for anyone except physicists?
”
No absolutely not. Most of science results in practical applications that even the most ignorant can appreciate. I’m not sure I could follow the math of Einstein that led to e=mc2 but I have no trouble understanding the death of many thousands at Hiroshima because of that sceince.

The residents of hiroshima accepted the process (unwillinglly) of the atom splitting

I’m not quite sure how antibiotics work but I know when I had chronic pneumonia they saved my life.

You perceived the benefit because you accepted the process of applying antibiotics - if you didn't take antobiotics your conclusion would be different

I’m not entirely sure how poisonous chlorine and explosive sodium combine to produce regular salt, but I’ve done that experiment directly myself at high school so I know it is true.

Same here - You accepted the process for making salt

I’m not sure of everything needed to conduct heart surgery but I know surgeons use the proofs developed by science to make it possible.

You have faith in those that accept the process that enables the performance of heart surgery

So I do not need to be an expert scientist to appreciate the extensive proofs and knowledge presented by science.

In all cases you accept the process or you accept those who accept the process

“
“ What’s your proof of that? ”

the same as any experiment, namely the conclusion arrived at determines the feasibility of the claims
”
So what practical proofs has religion ever delivered that we can appreciate in the same way that science has provided?

vast topic but basically there are 6 characteristics of pure devotional service to god spread over 3 levels of performance

1. Provides relief from material distress
2. By practicing it one attains auspiciousness
3. one derides the happiness of even liberation
4. It is rarely achieved
5. It automatically imbues one with transcendental pleasure
6. It is the only means to attract god

BTW - these defintions of sanskrit words can be unpacked to write essays regarding their exact definition - these are just indications

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

How does that answer the question of which god? There are thousands of definitions.

There are thousands of words for water in different languages too - do you drink aqua, pani, jal or water?

Do you have a proof that there is only one god and if so which one is it?

Just as water fulfills teh same requirements in all cultures to be determined as a singular object, so does the monotheistic understanding of god

 

[lightgigantic]

Spidergoat

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you don't understand the behavioural relationships between the theorized terms one may be familiar with, you certainly cannot determine the same results.
”
So? These relationships are reproducible and well defined, unlike the tenets of religion.

Then I would argue that you are due for a refresher course in theistic theory

 

[Cris]

Lg,

“ Do you have a proof that there is only one god and if so which one is it? ”

Just as water fulfills teh same requirements in all cultures to be determined as a singular object, so does the monotheistic understanding of god

Absolutely I agree. There can be an infinite number of different names for imaginary objects but they all equate to the same thing; fantasy.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

The residents of hiroshima accepted the process (unwillinglly) of the atom splitting

Whether they did or not is irrelevant. It was a truth established by science that was confirmed.

You perceived the benefit because you accepted the process of applying antibiotics - if you didn't take antobiotics your conclusion would be different

BS. The lives saved by antibiotics has been staggering since their development. Or do I have to show the well understood statistics on this. The point is that knowledge and truth was established by science and this was further proof that most normal people are able to comprehend.

Same here - You accepted the process for making salt

No, I proved the process for myself. Science had already developed the process. I simply confirmed it as a non expert scientist.

You have faith in those that accept the process that enables the performance of heart surgery

It is irrelevant what I personally accept here. There is no doubt that the knowledge and truth established by science has enabled heart surgery to be a viable medical practice. Most ordinary non expert scientists can comprehend this.

In all cases you accept the process or you accept those who accept the process

Which is entirely irrelevant. The knowledge and truths established by science in these examples reveals the effectiveness of science and that ordinary people don’t have to be expert scientists to benefit from this knowledge.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

So what practical proofs has religion ever delivered that we can appreciate in the same way that science has provided? ”

vast topic but basically there are 6 characteristics of pure devotional service to god spread over 3 levels of performance

1. Provides relief from material distress
2. By practicing it one attains auspiciousness
3. one derides the happiness of even liberation
4. It is rarely achieved
5. It automatically imbues one with transcendental pleasure
6. It is the only means to attract god

(1) I can do with non religious meditation.
(2) Achievable without religion.
(3) Achievable without religion.
(4) Many things can be rarely achieved, that doesn’t take religion.
(5) Achievable through non-religious meditation.
(6) One cannot attract fantasies.

I don’t see anything from that list that religion has anything worthwhile to offer that I can’t achieve without it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lg,

Absolutely I agree. There can be an infinite number of different names for imaginary objects but they all equate to the same thing; fantasy.

Not sure if you ar e saying that water and its properties are imaginary ...

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
The residents of hiroshima accepted the process (unwillinglly) of the atom splitting
”
Whether they did or not is irrelevant. It was a truth established by science that was confirmed.

The point is that they were not independant from the process
“

You perceived the benefit because you accepted the process of applying antibiotics - if you didn't take antobiotics your conclusion would be different
”
BS. The lives saved by antibiotics has been staggering since their development. Or do I have to show the well understood statistics on this. The point is that knowledge and truth was established by science and this was further proof that most normal people are able to comprehend.

The point is that you were not independant from the process

“
Same here - You accepted the process for making salt
”
No, I proved the process for myself. Science had already developed the process. I simply confirmed it as a non expert scientist.

The point is that you were not independant from the process

“
You have faith in those that accept the process that enables the performance of heart surgery
”
It is irrelevant what I personally accept here. There is no doubt that the knowledge and truth established by science has enabled heart surgery to be a viable medical practice. Most ordinary non expert scientists can comprehend this.

Inductive reasoning/faith - whatever you want to call it

“
In all cases you accept the process or you accept those who accept the process
”
Which is entirely irrelevant. The knowledge and truths established by science in these examples reveals the effectiveness of science and that ordinary people don’t have to be expert scientists to benefit from this knowledge.

I am not contending that - I am contending whether such persons indepenadnt from the processes have the ability to verify or deny the soundness of the principles that establish the processes

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

“
So what practical proofs has religion ever delivered that we can appreciate in the same way that science has provided? ”

vast topic but basically there are 6 characteristics of pure devotional service to god spread over 3 levels of performance

1. Provides relief from material distress
2. By practicing it one attains auspiciousness
3. one derides the happiness of even liberation
4. It is rarely achieved
5. It automatically imbues one with transcendental pleasure
6. It is the only means to attract god

”

I did say there were vast topics ... but then I anticipated something like this .... anyway here we go

(1) I can do with non religious meditation.

Klesaghni - relief from all distress
Distress has three causes

1. papam - sin (maybe you would be more comfortable working with the term "vikarma", activities that bestow unwanted results)
2. bijam - material desire (desire for vikarma)
3. avidya - ignorance (inability to go beyond relative knowledge that cannot tell us ultimately who, what or where we are)

how are these issues addressed by non-religious meditation?

(2) Achievable without religion.

Subhada - all auspiciousness

Something cannot be all-auspicious without meeting these 4 criteria

1. benefits everyone (anyone who takes the auspicious article perceives the benefit)
2. attracts everyone (there is no material prerequisite/disqualification to being attracted to it)
3. produces good qualities (bad qualities are symptomized by lust, greed anger etc)
4. bestows superior happiness - three types of happiness
   • that which comes by sense gratification
   • that which comes from liberation (merging into the absolute)
   • that which comes from devotional service to god
     
     the final type of happiness is superior for two reasons
     1. it is eternal whereas the others are temporary
     2. it includes and excels the pleasures found in the other types of happiness

(3) Achievable without religion.

Moksa-Laghutakrta - Derides the happiness of liberation
lol - on the contray, material activities drive one to seek liberation due to their intrinsic proponents of suffering - devotional service to god however is defined as deriding the mere concept of liberation because there is no appearance of suffering (which is the requirement for liberation to be attractive)

(4) Many things can be rarely achieved, that doesn’t take religion.

Pure devotional service to god is more rare than anything you could mention because

1. we cannot attain it by our own endeavours
2. god is reluctant to give it
   (things like mundane wealth, fame, adoration etc god gives very easily, even to an atheist)

(5) Achievable through non-religious meditation.

sandrananda Visesatma - Incalculably condensed bliss
- the eg is there that nothing can penetrate metal because it s molecular density is so concentrated. Similarly the happiness of advanced devotional service is so densely concentrated that nothing can penetrate it, not even the desire for liberation, what to speak of the desire for mundane name, fame and adoration.
You would have to give an example of something that is so intensely pleasurable that there is no space for any other thing that could be conceived of as pleasurable to manifest

(6) One cannot attract fantasies.

Sri Krsnakarsini - attracts god
- this is actually the point of direct perception of god - of course it is a very exalted state, and persons not capabale of appreciating it can say any number of useless statements much like a highschool drop out adverse to the scientific body of knowledge can say so so many useless things to deride the concept of an electron

I don’t see anything from that list that religion has anything worthwhile to offer that I can’t achieve without it.

Probably because I only touched on the subjects by brief definition - even from this point there are numerous details that clearly indicate that there is no comparison between devotional service to god and any material equivelant you could think up

 

[Cris]

lg,

Not sure if you ar e saying that water and its properties are imaginary ...

You were talking about water, but the topic was gods. You should try harder to stay on topic.

 

[Cris]

Lg,

The point is that they were not independant from the process

The victims of the bomb are not the issue here. The entire point is that the results of science are proven by very obvious demonstrable effects and experienced by people who have not become expert scientists.

The point is that you were not independant from the process

Irrelevant. The point is that I did not have to study science to receive the results of scientific developments.

Inductive reasoning/faith - whatever you want to call it

No, no, no. There is nothing inductive or anything that requires faith when an atomic bomb kills thousands of people because of scientific truths. These are pure facts. Neither do I have to study science to know this.

I am not contending that - I am contending whether such persons indepenadnt from the processes have the ability to verify or deny the soundness of the principles that establish the processes

Are you trying to imply conspiracy theories, that Hiroshima never occurred or that men didn’t land on the moon? Can there be any doubt that these things did occur as a result of applied science?

Your argument is that the supernatural can’t be perceived unless one becomes a religious guru and you claim similarly that science can’t be understood unless one becomes an expert scientist. But that is not a valid comparison. Perception and understanding are separate and distinct. In my examples above there should be no doubt that we can perceive the truths of science at work in all the applications it has made possible without having to understand in detail all the principles.

In religion there is no equivalent since as you have stated an ordinary person cannot perceive the supernatural or garnish its fruits unless they take part in the religious process and become experts. And that brings us right back to one of my original questions as to how you can prove that these gurus have indeed perceived something supernatural? Clearly from everything you have said you are unable to prove to non-religious gurus that the supernatural exists.

That means that ordinary people can only accept that the supernatural exists based on unsupported irrational belief.

In the end you are unable to show that the supernatural exists or prove that religious gurus are able to perceive the supernatural.

You are also unable to show that the claims of these gurus are any different to imaginary fantasy.

I remain singularly unimpressed with all your failures to demonstrate that anything about religion can reveal a single truth.

 

[Cris]

lg,

Thanks for all your comments about your religion and the time spent putting that post together; some of the concepts are commendable and attractive but I believe all the benefits that are claimed can be achieved in this proven and only material world.

I am a TM-Sidhi having learnt TM in 1977 and became a Sidhi in 1987. At the many training sessions I was exposed at length to a great deal of the type of prose you are using here via Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Whether you have any respect for him or not I don’t know but his teachings were all grounded in the ‘Gita, as are yours I believe. I have read a lot of his translation and I also have separate copy (As It Is). My attraction to TM was not religious but one of a need to reduce stress. I’ve since moved way past that and can now achieve levels of meditation that allow me to experience deep rest and freedom from stress that few people will ever experience.

While many of the gurus you reference will also achieve similar experiences they may well mistake them for supernatural, but they are not. The mind and body are one and the same thing, tightly interwoven, and inextricably linked. What we do to the body affects the mind and stress to the mind has a physiological affect on the body. Through effective meditation these daily stresses can be eliminated and which in turn allows the mind to experience peace, bliss, and happiness otherwise not possible.

There is only material; the supernatural and gods are pure fantasy dreamt up by gurus making fundamental mistakes about what they perceive combined with ignorance about how the real world functions.